Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
cut MS some slack (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to trying to be standards compliant Microsoft is dancing as fast as they can copying and adding the features virtually all other browsers have had around for years now.
From the article, MS (Chris Wilson) spots their compliance progress somewhere between 50 and less than 90%: Tough question, in terms of stating that we really do fully support the CSS 2.1 spec, it's hard to tell because there is a bias to any analysis. We're certainly somewhere between those two... I don't think we're at 90%, I think we're above 50% though...
Not sure where that puts them in terms of compliance compared to the other browsers, but I'm happy to stick with Firefox for many reasons, recommend anything but IE7 to anyone for many reasons, and probably stay that way. IE7 from Microsoft is looking like a little too little too late.
In the meantime, Microsoft almost seems tentative in their position about standards compliance versus backwards compatibility. In parts of the interview, Chris talks about trying not to alienate IE6 users (his mother) with changes to the "standards" behavior making IE6 sites not work or work differently, while in other parts of the interview he discusses being compliant "at the expense of backwards compatibility".
I don't know what they are doing with that, I'm not sure they do either. They made that bed. Now they're sleeping in it.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
There's only one standards compliance test that Microsoft has ever aimed to pass and that's their own.
Parent
Re:cut MS some slack (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I thought the same about the time IE 4 was in Beta.
Parent
Re:cut MS some slack (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the same way that Firefox/Mozilla was too little, too late after Netscape Communicator 4.x? The truth is that it is never too little, too late in the software world. If Microsoft delivers with IE7, and that's a big if, then they will likely regain some market share.
Parent
Re:cut MS some slack (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:cut MS some slack (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
In Other News..... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Quote from his blog (Score:5, Interesting)
Emphasis mine, changing the meaning a bit, but bear with me. If you read Chris Wilson's blog here [msdn.com], then you can see the following quote:
It's been frustrating, though, to be continually identified as the personal screw-up responsible for IE not supporting more standards today, when it's actually because of my personal influence that CSS is IMPLEMENTED in IE.
Again, emphasis mine (not the caps, though, just the boldface). So - if it weren't for this Chris guy, CSS wouldn't even have been implemented in IE. If he's right, that says a lot about Microsoft. I tend to believe him here.
Parent
Ok, then he needs to cut US some slack (Score:5, Insightful)
IF he is being unfairly blamed, then he has my sympathy on that and that alone. But to turn around and say "hey, we ARE standards-compliant - give or take up to 50% on the standards I even know about" is not a way to win friends and influence people. If he lacks the time to even establish which parts of the specs are implemented, then he might be better spending his time on figuring that out -or- listening to those who have, rather than complaining that the reviews make him look bad.
He should also stop and bear in mind that since he himself states he does not know the actual level of compliance (he only thinks it is over 50%) then he has absolutely no grounds for complaining about other people's estimates. For that matter, the lack of knowledge on compliance would suggest that the browser is improperly tested. Standards compliance tests are not really optional, since they establish a list of well-defined behaviours for well-defined cases. At the very least, you want to be absolutely certain that those cases won't cause the browser to crash or go rogue. The only way to know this is to try them out. And if you're trying them out, you know which standards are met and by what amount.
Ergo, his uncertainty establishes firmly that testing and QA is somewhere between poor and non-existant, AND that Microsoft has no software with which to determine when the standards are met. His complaint of being a lone voice establishes firmly that these are not being fixed and never will be.
Parent
Re:Ok, then he needs to cut US some slack (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, this is just all speculation, I have no idea what the real situation is like. But it's always worth keeping in mind that spokespeople represent companies, and politics are huge anywhere, especially Microsoft.
Parent
Re:cut MS some slack (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Acid Test (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Acid Test (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm mad at Microsoft for leaving us in the cold for so long, but even though I hate the IE7 user interface, I think the rendering engine really is good enough. Just make sure that IE7 gets pushed to each and every IE6 user out there. No bullshit like restricting it to Vista or XPSP2 please.
Parent
Re:Acid Test (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, gecko does pass it [nelchael.net]. The problem is that firefox 2.0 won't use that revision of the gecko core, only 3.0 will use it.
Now, even if current Firefox and future firefox 2.0 are not passing it, they're NEAR of passing it. IE7 rendering does not even look like a smiley [google.com].
I think the rendering engine really is good enough
Yeah, the software company number 1 of the world should be proud of shipping a widely used browser (IE is the most used application in the world) whose rendering engine is the worst one in the world, but that is "enought" only because IE defines what is "enought". If Firefox had 80% of market share, web developers would use lots features that IE does not even dreams to support until they ship IE8 in a couple of years. And nobody would use IE, because their engine is NOT "enought".
Parent
Re:Acid Test (Score:5, Informative)
"I said on the IE Blog that in IE7 we were not going to pass the Acid2 test"
He goes on to note that a number of the things used in the acid2 test are to not likey to be high on their priorities and would be focusing on more widely used CSS.
Parent
Re:Acid Test (Score:5, Insightful)
"Widely used CSS" is that tiny subset that works in IE6. Ofcourse nobody bothers using display:table-cell nor generated content when it fails in browser that 70%-90% visitors use, but these are very useful features.
Parent
Re:Acid Test (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Acid Test (Score:5, Insightful)
My thought is if IE people think that the Acid2 test is biased against IE then why don't they create their own standards compliant test page that works better in IE7(beta) than in Firefox or Opera?
There are tons of non-standards compliant IE-only webpages out there. It would be interesting to see a standards complaiant page where IE works better than Firefox or Opera.
Parent
Re:Acid Test (Score:5, Insightful)
You should if the standards in question explicitly require the browsers to do so.
As you are a web author, I assume you've written a CSS 2 stylesheet? Are you aware that most CSS 2 stylesheets are invalid CSS 1 stylesheets? And that it's the error handling defined in the CSS 1 specification that defines how your invalid code is handled in older browsers?
Do you plan on ever writing a CSS 3 stylesheet? Because if you do so, you'll be relying on the error handling defined by the CSS 2 specifications and implemented in current browsers. Wouldn't it be nice if you could do that safe in the knowledge that the browsers are going to behave in a certain way when faced with your invalid CSS 2 code?
That is the problem that the Acid2 test is trying to solve by including invalid code. Having invalid code handled correctly is an important part of ensuring forwards compatibility, because what appears to be invalid code to today's implementations could be perfectly reasonable code according to tomorrow's implementations.
Parent
Re:Acid Test (Score:5, Funny)
No, but the design team dropped a few tabs.
Parent
Re:Acid Test (Score:5, Informative)
Please do not spread this myth. It is simply not true. If you had actually read the Acid2 technical guide instead of relying on Slashdot hearsay, you would know this. From a previous comment of mine [slashdot.org]:
Parent
Re:Acid Test (Score:5, Informative)
You would if the C standard explicitly required compilers to do so.
The fact is, it doesn't make much sense to compare CSS to C. One is an imperative programming language, the other is a declarative style language. You can't miss out bits of a C program and still have it work right, but CSS is designed around the idea that you can do just that.
I don't want to include a CSS 3 property in my stylesheet only to have every CSS 2 browser simply throw everything away, I want them to apply the CSS 2 properties they do understand and ignore the bits they don't. Fortunately, this is exactly what the CSS specifications require, which is why the Acid2 test includes invalid code - it's testing this part of the specification.
Parent
Sounds familiar (Score:5, Funny)
"I won't *** in your mouth."
"I'll pull out in time."
"We're gonna make this the most secure OS ever!"
Even Bush knows, "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, not gonna happen."
Guaranteed, 100%, that IE7 will be less standards-compliant than either Firefox or Opera.
Re:Sounds familiar (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
"no official CSS test suite"??? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"no official CSS test suite"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please quote properly. The full quote is "there isn't an official test suite that exhaustively tests whether you comply with the standard or not." And that is true. A test suite cannot tell you if an implementation is compliant or to what degree an implementation is compliant. It can only point out particular things that are broken. If you're thinking of dividing the number of passed tests over the number of total tests, that still won't tell you how compliant an implementation is because it will be weighted according to the number of test cases for each particular language feature. If you weight them differently, then you let your own opinions about what is important into the analysis, which is why he followed up with "And any analysis you can do is going to be somewhat biased."
Parent
Re:"no official CSS test suite"??? (Score:5, Informative)
A test suite cannot tell you if an implementation is compliant
Yes, it can. If the question is boolean, then the test pointed to by grandparent definitely can give an objective answer. Currently, every browser I know of would fail, but it can give an answer.
or to what degree an implementation is compliant.
Yes, it can. It can give you a consistent answer on the number of passed and failed tests. That number may be biased for a given single run, but it can give a consistent answer, so it can be used to test relative compliance. It may give a fuzzy response that is open to interpretation, but I would bet that when testing different versions of the same browser, the answer would almost always be clear. It would be something like this:
IE6: Passed; 77. Failed; 39.
IE7: Passed; 92, Failed; 24.
IE7 Relative to IE6:
Passed in IE6, Failed in IE7; 2.
Passed in IE7, Failed in IE6; 17.
"One of the things I said in my post is that I think it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have an analysis of exactly where we are as a number with supporting or complying with CSS"
Actually, it's easy. There's an example of the numbers above. Are the numbers fuzzy? Yes. Does it provide, "an analysis of exactly where you are"? Yes. It is, "an analysis" and it is based on "exactly where you are." Is the result fuzzy? Of course. Every test of every human endeavor in history has either had a loose question or given a fuzzy result. Now stop being a sissy and answer the damned question.
"we really only did standards improvements - particularly CSS and HTML improvements. That was really the largest focus of our platform work overall."
If that is the case (though when someone uses "really" twice in two sentences without providing supporting evidence I think he doth protest too much), and this guy really is involved in the project, then he should have those numbers tatooed on his inner thigh. If CSS and HTML compliance really was the largest focus of the largest software company ever, he would at least be able to say something. He would be able to say, "I don't think these numbers are perfect, but here's what we get on the official test suite."
If MS really were focusing on those tests, even if he really believed that taking number passed over number failed was such a great injustice, they would have those numbers printed in 120 point font and hung on the wall of the developer area. He could have said, "Well, I can't give you a percentage, because percentages are inherently subjective - they weight every test the same which does not necessarily reflect the value of each test to the total user experience. And though the results are subjective, the tests are objective, and we track them like a hawk. Hey - we're the biggest software company in the world. Software loves tests. So, while I reiterate that these numbers are't perfect, I can tell you that IE7 now passes 17 tests that IE6 did not, and failed 2 that IE6 passed, using the W3C's standard set of CSS 2.1 tests. You can get the specific list of test results at www.microsoft.com/ie7-css-test/."
Or he can say none of that, and I will remain unclear on Microsoft's current view on standards. I won't claim that I know them to be as bad as they have been, simply that what this guy says is sound and fury signifying nothing. Which is all that GP was saying.
He claims that this particular course is their "largest focus", a course which they have repeatedly faltered from, with apparent intent, in the past. He says there is no way of providing a number, without even acknowledging the existence of the official set of tests. Not even to say they suck. Either he doesn't know they exist, or he doesn't feel they are important, or he feels the results would leave the audience nonplussed. The one thing we can say for sure is not the case is what he is implicitly claiming; that they are deeply interested in passing the tests, that they always know the results for the latest build, and that they are proud of their accomplishments.
Parent
Re:"no official CSS test suite"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
It can definitely prove that something is non-compliant. But it cannot definitely prove that something is compliant. A hell of a lot of bugs only manifest themselves in unusual circumstances. Unless you have prior knowledge of these bugs, you'd have to be very lucky to coincidentally trigger them with a simple test case.
No, it can't. Suppose there are a hundred testcases for selectors and five testcases for a particular float configuration in wide use on the web. By adding support for more selectors, a Microsoft engineer might pass twenty more testcases, but introduce a regression causing them to fail the five really important float testcases. By your standards, this would be more compliant, even though it would be considered a disaster in terms of compliance.
It doesn't make sense to judge compliance by the number of testcases passed. There isn't a good way of assigning a particular number to how compliant an implementation is. But the real question is why should there be? Does anybody really gain anything by saying that Internet Explorer is 53% compliant instead of 52% compliant? Or does it make more sense to talk about particular bugs and particular features that are supported? I can see how the former might be of use if all you want is a number to criticise Microsoft with, but as a web developer, I can tell you that having a percentage just isn't useful in any way if you are genuinely concerned with practical matters and not political ones.
Do any other browser developers provide a running count of how many CSS testcases they pass and how many they fail?
Or he thinks the same as I do; that such numbers are unimportant and misleading.
Parent
Re:"no official CSS test suite"??? (Score:5, Informative)
No. Not even close. Throw away the idea that he's arguing that Internet Explorer 7 is standards compliant. It's a complete fabrication; he never claimed that.
What he is saying is that they've done a lot of work in the area of standards compliance, there are moderate improvements, and that it doesn't really make sense to say that it supports 57.324% of the specification or whatever kind of number you can come up with, because there's really no sensible way of measuring something like that objectively.
Chris Wilson isn't a marketer, either. He's worked on Internet Explorer for years, he was on the W3C CSS working group and has his name in the acknowledgements of the specifications. I believe him when he claims to be working hard to bring Internet Explorer into compliance, but there's only so much a person can do without support from above.
Parent
More like 6 out of 7 (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:More like 6 out of 7 (Score:5, Informative)
It would have been really nice of the W3C to mention that somewhere in the test suite. Unfortunately they neglect to mention that in the test suite, on the test suite "home page," and in the test suite documentation. They even neglect to offer a full download of the suite (you can use wget for that).
Even their own test suite documentation [w3.org] neglects to mention the font requirement. In fact, the only place they mention it is on the test authoring guidelines [w3.org] which is not something I'd expect to read when just running tests.
If I get the time, I think I'll try and bundle the test suite up WITH the Ahem font and try and run it again. Maybe even use the CSS font-embedding extension so you don't actually need to install the font.
But I can see why people may not like that test suite. Without a "full suite download" it's a bit of a pain to use.
Parent
Pesky problem (Score:4, Funny)
Standards Compliance at Cost (Score:5, Interesting)
and for the love of money, think of all the FrontPage sites...
Re:Standards Compliance at Cost (Score:5, Insightful)
in otherwords: it's their own fucking fault, you code to a vendor-specific set in a non-vendor-specific world you're subject to the whims of that vendor
Parent
In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)
Too easy to debunk (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I have read where even Firefox isn't yet 100% compliant. I'm usure of how much difficulty that causes web developers though. Actually, I don't know much of anything about the web except that I use Firefox pretty exclusively. If MSIE7 was made at least as compliant as Firefox, it would actually kinda bother me as it would give me a lot less leverage to keep my Firefox deployment where I work.
-1, Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
What a ridiculous, misleading title. Microsoft have claimed nothing of the sort. They've claimed improvements, which is true. In fact, the article quotes Chris Wilson as saying he thinks they've implemented over half of the CSS 2.1 specification, but not 90%. That's hardly insisting it is compliant, is it?
I'm definitely no Internet Explorer fan - I think Microsoft's efforts with Internet Explorer 7 have been abysmal. But this is a non-story. Everybody knows that Internet Explorer isn't compliant. Everybody who has been paying attention knows that there have been gradual but long-demanded improvements included in Internet Explorer 7.
Shame on you Taco for posting a story with such a dishonest, inflammatory headline. If this were a political website, the equivalent to what you just did would be a Democrat posting a story saying "Dubya eats babies!"
Mod the original article ... (Score:4, Insightful)
This one deserves a score of "+5 Funny".
Goes so far? (Score:5, Insightful)
I look forward to the day when web developers won't have to develop multiple versions for multiple browsers.
50%? (Score:5, Insightful)
If your project can't meet at least 75% of it's goals, it's a complete failure. Anything less than 90% compliance is pathetic.
To put it simply, it's ok to have bugs on some of the obscure parts of the specification, but as long as IE7 still fails on the routine every day uses of CSS, it's garbage.
Puff ball interview (Score:5, Funny)
Did the interviewer have to remove his face from the interviewees crotch to ask him that question?
-Rick
Hilarious (Score:4, Informative)
Their html editing control is crap crap crap. I'm talking about the control thats been used in Outlook 2003, MSIMN/Outlook Express etc, I assume the interviewee is too.
* It is very easy to get paragraphs that are indented to the right. Yet it can be absolutely impossible to remove the indentation and align the paragraph with the rest of the text in the email. I suspect it barfs when it has to deal with nested tables.
* Deleting some text or formatting can drastically alter the following paragraph.
* You can read in perfectly valid html then it refactors it into gibberish.
Anyway its absolutely effing hilarious that they think its a strong html editor control.
Fixing the fix (Score:4, Interesting)
(Granted, the best way to do it is to set up a broswer check and use a different CSS file for each browser. But when you have a tiny website, you don't really care to futz with it.)
This effectively means that when IE7 comes out, all the hacks made for IE6 will break, and many pages created by that "cousin in high school" will suddenly look like rubbish.
Of course, those that were made predominantly for FireFox and Opera will still continue to work unabated.
Ummmm....of course (Score:4, Insightful)
He's a spokesman for Microsoft, a company trying to move a product. What is he supposed to say? "No, our browser sucks. It's not standards-compliant in the least bit. Have you tried firefox?"
A corporation claims their product is better than it really is. Wow. I'm shocked.
Expanding Box Bug (Score:5, Insightful)
From Chris' Blog [msdn.com]...
Last I heard IE7 does not fix the Expanding Box Bug [positioniseverything.net]?
This is a troublesome bug when you're populating DIV tags with generated data. You don't even have to be doing anything advanced.
Microsoft knows about the Position Is Everything [positioniseverything.net] Explorer bug list. I've seen IE engineers mention it on their blogs. So I don't buy the "we don't know of specific bugs" routine. And if he wants more concrete bug reports after that set, then theres the Comparison of Layout Engines [wikipedia.org] page which goes through the CSS specs in detail. I'm sure Micrsoft has fixed a bunch of those since IE6, but there are outstanding issues in IE7.
Most software engineers would pay large sums of money to have that type of detail in bug reports. Microsoft is getting that for free, but he is complaining that he does not have solid cases.
Re:Expanding Box Bug (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
They are bowling googlies again! (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the key folks. So many corporate database products rely on IE as the rendering engine. If the backward compatibility is lost, most corporations' will see their Crystal Reports, and other SQL engines that use IE as their GUI/renderers will be broken. They will never allow that to happen. So they will sacrifice the standard compliance.
Of course they will claim their concern is the "not spoiling the user experience" of their old moms or breaking millions of websites. But the real concern is that all these products should continue to use IE as their rendering engine. Their hold on corporate desktops through MS-Office and IE is too dear and profitable for them to compromise.
Translations from the managerese (Score:5, Informative)
"In IE7 we really are trying to support Web standards." Translation: we are not committing to being compliant with Web standards.
"We certainly spent a bunch of work trying to improve our standards support." Translation: We're over budget on standards support.
"I don't think we're at 90%, I think we're above 50% though." Translation: we're not compliant.
"Well as you saw I got a little frustrated with the Slashdot post." Translation: I can't point to factual inaccuracies in the Slashdot post, but I sure don't like the spin.
"The target for that was not just passing any one particular test." Translation: We don't pass that particular test.
Problem is even bigger than MS, it's monoculture. (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as one browser has such an overwhelming amount of marketshare, there will always be the temptation for the developers of that browser to do things differently than anybody else, and developers will neglect standards in order to make their site look a little better / flashier / faster than the competition, when viewed on that browser, by (ab)using its idiosyncrasies.
Microsoft is particularly bad at this, and has a history of being a poor citizen with almost every product that they've made, but ultimately I think you'd have the same problem with any browser that had 90+% marketshare. Since no piece of software is perfect, even a browser designed to be standards-compliant that was used that heavily, would have bugs in its rendering/interpretation of pages, which developers would begin to target, at the expense of other browsers.
Part of the problem is the developers who sacrifice standards compatibility, but the bigger problem is just one of having a monoculture to begin with. I'd prefer that Firefox have 90% marketshare than IE, because FF has a better security and compliance record, but I'd prefer that four browsers each have 25% than any single one have more than that.
Parent
Re:The irony (Score:5, Interesting)
IE7 may change that, as many recent Firefox converts may switch back when it comes through as a security release. The real wildcard though is just how much marketshare Apple is really capturing - IE will never again be available for Mac, and if they (Apple) are to be believed, they had something like 15-20% of the laptop sales marketshare last quarter (or month...too many stats!), and are growing. It may be a case of too little, too late, but with Vista and Leopard we could see a swing in browser marketshare not seen since IE trounced Netscape.
Parent